Rant on Theories, Laws & Misconceptions Options

[x_itchy_b_x]

why cant creation and evolution coexist? plenty of time has passed for both.
bam things were created... then they evolved into other species, but im not saying man came from monkeys.
im saying a giraffe grew a longer neck to get higher leaves. that type of evolution.

haha i should note i dont believe thats what happened im just throwing out theories ive heard, so people can get other ideas.

theres alot of other theories out there. some just aren't as mainstream, but that doesn't make them wrong (just hard for closed minded, media brain washed, government manipulated, religion corrupted people to accept or comprehend).

playa i love the giraffe gif!

This post has been edited by x_itchy_b_x: Feb 27, 2007 - 1:12 PM

[playr158]

In science, a theory is a mathematical description, a logical explanation, a verified hypothesis, or a proven model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation.

Evolutin isnt "just a theory." Its scientific theory. Theres a difference.

by this defenition you should be able to "test evolution through experiment"
ie apple dropping is the scientific theory of Gravity

you can't test evolution....

but note i'm discussion CREATION evolution not attribute evolution (ie the garaffe grew a longer neck, or a pattern shift of a moth)

personnaly i don't believe in creational evolution but i really dont care if someone does...your choice

This post has been edited by playr158: Feb 27, 2007 - 1:04 PM

[Supersprynt]

Your right. You cant test evolution like you test for ammonia in water. But what you can do is go through the fossil record make observations, calculations and see if evolution fits. And it does. Its consistent with what existed, and what existed cannot be changed, its literally IN STONE.

[jgreening]

im saying a giraffe grew a longer neck to get higher leaves. that type of evolution.

Evolution does not work that way. The giraffe can't will itself a longer neck. The way evolution works is that the species slowly mutates through reproduction and the giraffes with the longest necks survive thus evolving to have longer necks.

I also agree that evolution occurs. Its not reasonably debatable. It does not, however, prove anything with regard to whether there was a creator.

[playr158]

Your right. You cant test evolution like you test for ammonia in water. But what you can do is go through the fossil record make observations, calculations and see if evolution fits. And it does. Its consistent with what existed, and what existed cannot be changed, its literally IN STONE.

fossil records ok....you have dynos what did they evolve from or to?
crocidle has been the SAME since that same period..0 evolution into anything...
the monkey....hasn't evolved into a human...we have yet to see a middle piece fossil
the human has been generally the same since the caveman

where is your stone middle pieces?

This post has been edited by playr158: Feb 27, 2007 - 1:14 PM

[Supersprynt]

Exactly right, it doesn't pretend to.

Thats how far off this topic has gotten.

The only thing is with the only thing most people base their faith on, the bible, says "this is the way it was as stated by god..." and then now evidence is showing thats not how it is, people still dont accept that its NOT how the bible said it. And if the ONLY thing that says that is wrong, what else is wrong?

Except people come up with their own ideas about their personal god and evolution etc. To argue with that is pointless because things are changed around so much that its impossible go get a conclusion.

[jgreening]

Your right. You cant test evolution like you test for ammonia in water. But what you can do is go through the fossil record make observations, calculations and see if evolution fits. And it does. Its consistent with what existed, and what existed cannot be changed, its literally IN STONE.

fossil records ok....you have dynos what did they evolve from or to?
crocidle has been the SAME since that same period..0 evolution into anything...
the monkey....hasn't evolved into a human...we have yet to see a middle piece fossil
the human has been generally the same since the caveman

where is your stone middle pieces?

Humans have absolutely evolved. Where were you in eighth grade social studies? Remember the hunched over cro-magna man with the extended jaw? I am less convinced of any direct link between today's primates and humans however.

[Supersprynt]

Your right. You cant test evolution like you test for ammonia in water. But what you can do is go through the fossil record make observations, calculations and see if evolution fits. And it does. Its consistent with what existed, and what existed cannot be changed, its literally IN STONE.

fossil records ok....you have dynos what did they evolve from or to?
crocidle has been the SAME since that same period..0 evolution into anything...
the monkey....hasn't evolved into a human...we have yet to see a middle piece fossil
the human has been generally the same since the caveman

where is your stone middle pieces?

You have no fundamental knowledge of evolution.

If no change is necessary, if the change is detrimental, it doesnt survive.

Dinosaurs went extinct, thought that was common knowledge.

A monkey, is not a primate. A monkey was something else before what we call a monkey.

People are under the impression change still isn't ocurring. Take cockroaches today. Alot of cockroaches who were easily killed with a certain kind of pesticide do not react to it today. This mutation is keeping them alive, and this mutation allows more cockroaches to survive. They replicate, and the mutation becomes widespread throughout the entire species.

Mutation is an accident. Evolution, is the effect of Natural Selection. Which means the good mutations in animals are kept from them surviving & reproducing. Passing that mutation on.

Seriously read up, this is stuff you should know before coming in here.

This post has been edited by Supersprynt: Feb 27, 2007 - 1:24 PM

[jgreening]

the only thing most people base their faith on, the bible, says "this is the way it was as stated by god..." and then now evidence is showing thats not how it is, people still dont accept that its NOT how the bible said it. And if the ONLY thing that says that is wrong, what else is wrong?

The debate about whether biblical passages should be read literally is beyond the scope of this discussion. However, I was only pointing out that people that believe that the bible is true can also believe that evolution occurs. The point was already made that the concepts are not mutually exclusive.

[saleeka]

Deductive reasoning (the scientific method) is not the opposite of belief - its just different. There are many many people (me included - undergrad philosophy major, lawyer by trade) that tend to be very rational yet also have faith in God.

I once struggled with reconciling the whole issue myself. Even in my most agnostic days (during college) there were two questions that I could never answer purely from a scientific perspective.

1. If the world was created in a "big bang" (followed by evolution), how and why did the big bang occur?

2. In a universe full of various forms of "matter", how can we explain how and why some things are living?

I would argue that the most logical among us might conceed that there is something bigger than us that holds the answers to these questions.

Just curious, but am I correct in assuming that you no longer consider yourself to be agnostic?

This post has been edited by saleeka: Feb 27, 2007 - 3:05 PM

[jgreening]

There are many many people (me included...) that tend to be very rational yet also have faith in God.

Just curious, but am I correct in assuming that you no longer consider yourself to be agnostic?

[Jen]

Ironically, this is what I'm studying in Biology right now.

http://bb.fccj.edu/courses/1/Spring2007-BS...iodiversity.htm

[Kwanza26]

yea i read very little of this but people who have said
"evolution is a fact" are completely wrong because it is ONLY a theory even in the science community
you can't prove evolution....you're still missing the half man half monkey....

Darwin the man who was the biggest supporter and researcher ect of evolution even said
his theories and ideas were WRONG yet people still try to believe them?

general words from ....
the complexity of an eye has no chance of stemming from "evolution" and that there was a great chance of a tornado going through a junk yard and coming out the other end having FULLY assembled a working 757.....

LoL... talk about about not knowing the subject. You just love to talk talk talk especially when you don't have the slightest understanding huh...

Darwin's theory of Evolution has been around since the 19th century. It is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY meaning you can go out and observe and document much like Darwin did. It's not an idea that has yet to be proven. It's a widely accepted theory today in the modern world supported by DNA evidence. If there were any flaws or burden of proof, would not our technological advances in the past 150+ years since the theory was introduced, be able to prove otherwise?

Also... you're using such a stereotypical example to try and disprove evolution. Airplanes are not biological. LOL. Go look up cumulative selection and actually LEARN what the theory is before you try and attack it with nonsense. I'm sure it can hold its own against an internet mechanic... I mean, it has done fine for the past 150+ years against the church and society...

[Jen]

Ironically, this is what I'm studying in Biology right now.

http://bb.fccj.edu/courses/1/Spring2007-BS...iodiversity.htm

Okay that didn't work.

this is going to be LONG..

In lecture, before I teach evolution, I tell my classes of all my travels all over the world. The exotic places I have been to: China, Australia (aborigines), New Zealand, (Maories), Nepal

(Buddhists and Hindus), Hawaii, Tahiti and the South Pacific,(polynesians), Costa Rica, Guatemala, Peru,(lived in the Amazon with the Indians two summers for short periods), as well as much of Europe and all over the U.S. and Canada.

Why do I tell you that? Because I have listened to the stories of all these different peoples and cultures and they each have a story of how their culture KNOWS the world began. It is all based on their beliefs and that is good and fine. Their beliefs system, also known as religion, determines the laws of the society without which none of us could get along. Beliefs systems are excellent for that purpose, and I have no quarrel with that. However, we, as Christians, have the audacity to think that our bible has the only true story. You have to remember, or know, that Hawaiians believe that Mauna Loa, their huge active volcano, is the goddess of life, and that the Aborigines believe that Lightening Man is the only true God of life. The Amazon Indians have a different belief, as do Buddhists, etc. We are only 30% of the world’s religious populations and, the technology that abounds today was not around when our bible, theTorah, The Koran, etc. were written.

So, as you read and learn this chapter please keep an open mind and know that religious beliefs and scientific theory can go hand in hand…particularly where how the world began is discussed. We need our belief system to get us through tough times and to shape our actions to each other.



Origins of Life


How did life emerge on earth? How did organisms evolve? It started with two types of evolution: physical and chemical evolution. Evidence of the earth’s early history comes from chemical analysis and measurements of radioactive elements in rocks and fossils.



Chemical evolution – of organic molecules, biopolymers, and systems of chemical reactions needed to form protobionts ( first living cells) took place in our early oceans. Combining water and lipids to form the first cells with membranes. Scientists today can replicate the first formations of the protobionts, amino acids, simple sugars, even RNA and DNA in their laboratories, using the same chemicals that were in the earth’s early atmosphere and oceans: methane gas, sulfuric acid, hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen gas, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide and water. Those ingredients, plus an electrical charge (lightening), form the above cells very nicely in the laboratory today.



Biological evolution – from single celled, prokaryotic bacteria to multicellular eukaryotic cells, and then multicellular organisms. Today, in our cells we have organelles such as mitochondria that make their own DNA, different from the DNA made in the nucleus of our cells. Not so strangely, the mitochondria looks more like an animal viral particle and does not resemble the rest of the cell. And, in the proteins of the electron transport chain in our respiratory system are particles of chlorophyll…both evidence of early beginnings from ancient cells that evolved further.



Our earth has changed greatly from its tumultuous beginnings, cooling, allowing water to form, the temperature to stabilize, and now contains 21% oxygen, whereas the early atmosphere had no oxygen in it. Only when algae evolved to trap the energy of the sun and convert it into an organic molecule (sugar), using carbon dioxide as its carbon source and releasing oxygen as its waste product, was life able to evolve away from the seas and live on land.



ORIGINS OF LIFE - Earth is 4.7 billion years old, life evolved 3.7 BYA



From chemical and biological evolution. We can actually place the time oxygen was first prevalent on earth by such things as the changing of iron ore from one state to another (by its rust), and then by radiometric dating.



How did Chemical evolution take place?
“BIG BANG” THEORY


First there was hot, dense matter. Then, fusion. Hydrogen, helium, other materials form. Gravity, and the sun forms, and cosmic dust forms the earth, the moon from the earth’s mantle. Lighter materials form the earth’s crust, heavier materials form its molten core and mantle.



No atmosphere or oceans at that time



Volcanic eruptions and comets hitting earth release water and vapor, other gases from interior. The early atmosphere contained no oxygen, just sulfuric acid, methane, other gases, eventually carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide.



Water vapor rose, eventually forming rains which caused cooling, erosion…



Energy from volcanic eruptions, meteor impacts, lightening. UV light caused chemical reactions that eventually formed amino acids, then proteins, eventually single-celled anaerobic organisms



No fossils on land at the time. We think life emerged from the sea.



Cyanobacteria ( blue-green algae) developed ability to take in CO2 from water, and gave off O2 in water and atmosphere. Radioisotopes from rocks of ferrous iron converted to ferric iron. This only happens in presence of O2…can tell when O2 appeared on Earth by this .



1.2 billion years ago (BYA) - Other organisms evolved - multicelled, that gave rise to other organisms that eventually went to land. Some went back to the seas.



PROOF of EVOLUTION? Scientists theories are based on facts that HAVE TO BE PROVEN OR DISPROVEN. There has to be experiments to prove these facts. Whereas personal belief systems are just that…beliefs..”someone said such and such and I believe it.” No facts…just I believe. We have proof in so many different ways. I could write a book on this, but for brevities sake, here are just a few:



Fossils – of dead organisms…bones, teeth, shells.

Radioactive carbon dating (stromatolites – Canada, Australia)

DNA – we still have photosynthetic cells in human respiratory system and we don’t convert sunlight to energy!



EVOLUTION – The change in a population’s genetic makeup thru successive generations. (Populations evolve, not individuals by becoming genetically different)



THEORY OF EVOLUTION – all species evolved from earlier, ancestral species



MACROEVOLUTION – long term, large-scale evolutionary changes occurring in groups of species, new species formed, others lost.



MICROEVOLUTION – small genetic changes occurring in a population.



Gene Pool - total of all genes possessed in a population. Microevolution is a change in a population’s gene pool.



Most members of a population have the same # and kinds of genes, but some genes have variation, such as in flower color. Variations in a gene are called alleles.



Sexual reproduction causes a random shuffling or recombination of alleles through meiosis. This reshuffling causes genetic variation and is part of the source of evolution.



4 processes that affect microevolution:



Mutation – ultimate source of genetic variability…involves random changes in a cell’s DNA. Caused by radioactivity, UV light, x-rays, mutagens, and random mistakes in our genetic code caused by incorrect DNA processing.



Mutations can be good, harmful, or lethal. Sickle cell anemia was once a gene mutation that conferred an advantage to Africans against malaria. If the person had one defective gene, they survived malaria. But, if they had/have 2 defective alleles, they have full-blown sickle cell anemia and usually die in their 40’s. Many African-Americans and Asians now have the sickle cell gene or genes.



Mutations are also:



Random and unpredictable

The only source of new genetic raw materials

Rare events



Gene flow – movement of genes between populations, leading to changes in the genetic composition of local populations. Ex: frogs in a pond tend to breed with the same frogs in that pond. Sometimes, migration occurs and frogs from one pond may move to another and interbreed. Now there is an exchange of different genes and gene flow has occurred.



Genetic drift – in small populations ---the chance genetic changes in the genetic composition of a population. Important in small populations. Ex: perhaps there is an albino frog in a pond. There is a 25% chance that he will pass that gene on to offspring. However, if a predator kills him before he can mate, that set of genes is eliminated from the population and we say that genetic drift has occurred. In a larger population, there is a greater chance that the frog would survive. That is why genetic drift is more common in smaller populations.



Natural Selection – when individuals in a population have genetically derived traits that allow them to survive and reproduce more offspring than other individuals, we say it is a result of natural selection.



· Must have variability of characteristics e.g. color, size, shape, behavior

· Trait must be heritable – genetic based in order to be passed on to next gen.

· Trait must lead to increased. reproduction…more offspring than other members of a population



N.S. causes any alleles resulting in a beneficial trait to become more common in succeeding generation.



Adaptation – A heritable trait that allows organisms to better survive & reproduce under a given set of environmental conditions.



Read the article and experiment about the Peppered Moths. It is a classic case representation of natural selection.




3 Types of Natural Selection – they each have different environmental conditions and different genetic outcomes. Study the diagrams in your book to see what the terms mean.



1. Directional– “different is better”

Environmental conditions changing, allele frequencies shift, so that alleles at one end of normal become more common than midrange forms. Ex: changes in varieties of peppered moths, insects’ genetic resistance to pesticides.



2. Stablizing – “average is better”



Tends to eliminate individuals on both sides of the curve and favor individuals with an average genetic makeup who have adapted well to the environment.



3. Diversifying or disruptive – “average is NOT better”

Environmental conditions tend to favor individuals at both ends of the curve, and eliminates average individuals. Ex: finches and beaks…medium seed production is eliminated or sharply declines. Those birds with larger beaks or stronger beaks will survive. Those with average beaks will decline.



Co-evolution – 2 different species interact over a long period of time. When changes in the gene pool effect one, the other gene pool also changes.

[ScoobyDooCruiser]

I don't claim to be educated enough to give an opinion. I am just a beginner in the giant world of thought.

However, I am curious, how many of you have read Darwin's Origin of Species in it entirety? It’s a good read, and before any creationist vs. evolutionist debate is even attempted, I would suggest reading it. Also, worth reading are some the works Gregory Mendel, the monk who founded modern genetic theory.

Before an understanding of the current winds of science is possible, the intellectual origin must be known. We cannot argue reasonably unless the development of the thought, and not simply the current manifestation, is known.

[forkee]

heres my 2 cents

im catholic. i believe in God. i believe in evolution. i dont see the point in going to church every week, so i dont go. i hate people that try to push their beliefs. i dont try to push mine, i just explain why i think the way i do. if you agree fine, if not, who cares. i wont get offended.

the bible is just a bunch of stories, more of a mother goose and tales rather than a factual representation of history. your not supposed to take it literally, but realize the story behind it and i guess the morals, but then again i find alot of morals in there to be pretty messed up. i pretty much pick and choose what i decide to take in.

the universe and all of creation was not made in 6 days (God rested on the 7th) even though the bible says so. at least not what we know as one week. if 1000 years was one second to God, then the whole 1 week for creation story seems more plausible.

adam and eve story shows us that we were specially chosen from the rest of the animal kingdom to take care of everything that God has made. and today we really do need to take care of the planet, for it is our home, mother earth. when we are young, we follow orders and just take things for granted, but sometimes we question the reasoning of older people (God) and choose our own paths (like adam and eve). the snake is like part of our conscience that makes us question ourselves. just like freud's id, ego, and superego. a lot of times questioning ourselves is a good thing though.

people find religion therapeutic, some are addicted to it. believing in things is what makes us human. no other living thing has that.

i think it was descarte (or however u spell it) who said, "i think, therefore i am". the fact that i can think means i exist. i dont know if you exist, or in fact if im really where i think i am. i just know i exist. the mind just puts together all the input from all of our senses and tries to make sense of it. what does God look like? who knows? people say we were made in his image. does that mean he looks human? and because of evolution, does that mean God first looked like a primordial glob of goo?? i think that by saying we were made in his image, it forces people to "think" that he is somehow in all of us for people then see the likeness, thereby humbling us to one another. one might interpret this as kindness.

people have put together their experiences throughout existence and tried to make sense of that. and thats where the bible comes along. its not history like we know history (as a book of facts). to me its a history of peoples stories spread throughout time. it probably has changed millions of times for it came from a time where theres no way in hell anything was written so it was mostly spoken. like that game where you tell someone something and it travels to the end of the line, the words will be different but the message is the same. all the books that different major religions follow preach similar messages of peace, patience, virtue, and love.

not to say that the majority of society are dimwitted, but if your gonna get a message across, it is easier to explain it in detail with reasoning and rationale behind every action? or to make a story that will make you think and get the message (hopefully).

comedians are stupid. they look at things and try to get something funny from it. their whole existence is based on the fact that they have a seperate opinion and we watch them to see their interpretation of things and hopefully find them entertaining. their reasonings are illogical. spock would never laugh at one. i watch them sometimes and get a good laugh, but i would never take them seriously. their method of thinking is, if A=C and B=C, then A must equal B. they don't care about the why. why does A=B? and sometimes A doesn't equal B. for example:

A is a rectangle
B is a square
C is a shape with 4 sides

both A and B have 4 sides but a rectangle does not have 4 equal sides like a square

a comedian uses flawed logic sometimes to make a rectangle into a square. like the bible, dont take them too literally, just try and get the message.

This post has been edited by forkee: Feb 28, 2007 - 1:26 AM

[playr158]

yea i read very little of this but people who have said
"evolution is a fact" are completely wrong because it is ONLY a theory even in the science community
you can't prove evolution....you're still missing the half man half monkey....

Darwin the man who was the biggest supporter and researcher ect of evolution even said
his theories and ideas were WRONG yet people still try to believe them?

general words from ....
the complexity of an eye has no chance of stemming from "evolution" and that there was a great chance of a tornado going through a junk yard and coming out the other end having FULLY assembled a working 757.....

LoL... talk about about not knowing the subject. You just love to talk talk talk especially when you don't have the slightest understanding huh...

Darwin's theory of Evolution has been around since the 19th century. It is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY meaning you can go out and observe and document much like Darwin did. It's not an idea that has yet to be proven. It's a widely accepted theory today in the modern world supported by DNA evidence. If there were any flaws or burden of proof, would not our technological advances in the past 150+ years since the theory was introduced, be able to prove otherwise?

Also... you're using such a stereotypical example to try and disprove evolution. Airplanes are not biological. LOL. Go look up cumulative selection and actually LEARN what the theory is before you try and attack it with nonsense. I'm sure it can hold its own against an internet mechanic... I mean, it has done fine for the past 150+ years against the church and society...

Darwin himself DISOWNED his own THEORY .....
i'm glad your smart enough to know airplanes aren't biological....good for you

and seams like you like to talk talk talk yourself considering you don't know **** about what i do....but then again you don't matter for **** and i have nothing to prove to anyone here...

but on the other hand its just tooooo easy to come in and make sparks fly with you sensative people....maybe you should get a hug and a cookie

This post has been edited by playr158: Feb 28, 2007 - 1:44 AM

[saleeka]

There are many many people (me included...) that tend to be very rational yet also have faith in God.

Just curious, but am I correct in assuming that you no longer consider yourself to be agnostic?

The point of most logical people believing in somthing of a higher power/understanding is a core to what it means to be agnostic, yet i'm still unsure what you are getting at- the word God to me is unclear in this context...

That said, I feel that being agnostic is the most logical middle ground you can have. Our human scope isn't capable to grasp somthing we cannot physically achieve, so there is always questions left without answers. Why bother? I am man enough to admit that I am too selfish to commit to any set of rules or train of thought that does not allow me to experience the life that I have at this moment to it's fullest, stopping short of any action that would be detremental to other being's lives. I don't see anything wrong with that...

This post has been edited by saleeka: Feb 28, 2007 - 3:30 AM

[Supersprynt]

Darwin himself DISOWNED his own THEORY .....
i'm glad your smart enough to know airplanes aren't biological....good for you

and seams like you like to talk talk talk yourself considering you don't know **** about what i do....but then again you don't matter for **** and i have nothing to prove to anyone here...

but on the other hand its just tooooo easy to come in and make sparks fly with you sensative people....maybe you should get a hug and a cookie

"[Charles] never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier...the whole story has no foundation whatever."

-Henrietta Litchfield, Februrary 23, 1922

This is the problem with believing in something when you have absolutely zero scientific knowledge of the point your trying to dismiss. You do exactly what every other person opposed to evolution does, try to disprove it with false logic and word games when in reality you should be trying to come up with something substantial for your point of view. Evolution is a well documented. Its not waiting to be proven.

Not to mention, even if Charles Darwin did "disown" his own theory, it wouldn't change a single thing.

This post has been edited by Supersprynt: Feb 28, 2007 - 9:42 AM

[jgreening]

I am too selfish to commit to any set of rules or train of thought that does not allow me to experience the life that I have at this moment to it's fullest, stopping short of any action that would be detremental to other being's lives. I don't see anything wrong with that...

For the sake of argument, I will assume that "experience life that I have at this moment to the fullest" means "experience everything I can". This may not be what you intendend. Having said that, I imagine there are many people who think that the more and varied experiences they can have, the better. Through experience, I have come to believe something 180 degrees different; that, experience itself is neither good or bad. It depends on what you are experiencing to know whether its good or bad both for yourself and for others. I believe that we all make choices about what we will experience and those choices have consequences. I am not talking about legal consequences or what happens to your soul. I am talking about what happens to your life.

Also, don't be so judgmental to think that living by a moral code somehow limits the life experience. I would argue that the most self-actualized people have a very high set of personal standards about what they will or will not participate in. On the other hand, it is my experience that those that do not set boundaries have lives that are often a mess.

This post has been edited by jgreening: Feb 28, 2007 - 10:08 AM